- Reaction score
- 6,283
- Points
- 1,040
Ammunition storage was also an issue; our rules our quit different from the Germans on what is allowed in magazines. We also buy a tonne of initial spares plus tech data, and things like training, infrastructure and other stuff is included in the overall ship budget.
If you look on the Auditor general site, there was a costing project on AOPs maybe about 5 years ago where they tried to compare the costs to other countries and ships. It's a good read, but basically they concluded it was impossible to get an apples-to-apples comparison with any other comparable government procurement because countries include totally different things in their budgets and do the accounting differently, and also have different contracting rules (which impact price) so without getting access to the raw data from the projects, as well as the contract terms and conditions it's not possible to do. And even if you did, really doesn't matter, as there is a longstanding 'build in Canada' policy for all these ships.
Super frustrating though that when there are all these rules tacked on to any big dollar value procurement for Canadian content, IRBs etc that there isn't a project credit included somewhere when they report the budget. For example, if a $1B dollar project creates $250M in clear economic benefits (or things like taxes that go directly back to the govt), it would be nice if that was included for context within the project updates.
Pretty ridiculous when it's a 70 year old, cabinet level 'Build in Canada' shipbuilding policy, combined with IRBs, VPs and other things that tack on to the overall project cost, but those benefits are not balanced into the project spreadsheets. You spend a whack of staff time arguing with folks in Finance etc on why it costs so much, when you had no option to do anything other then build it in Canada under those rules. Unless you run an open competition without any of those contract terms in play, it's also impossible to say what the 'premium' is for going this route with any real accuracy, but we can at least track the benefits down to a pretty reasonable number.
If you look on the Auditor general site, there was a costing project on AOPs maybe about 5 years ago where they tried to compare the costs to other countries and ships. It's a good read, but basically they concluded it was impossible to get an apples-to-apples comparison with any other comparable government procurement because countries include totally different things in their budgets and do the accounting differently, and also have different contracting rules (which impact price) so without getting access to the raw data from the projects, as well as the contract terms and conditions it's not possible to do. And even if you did, really doesn't matter, as there is a longstanding 'build in Canada' policy for all these ships.
Super frustrating though that when there are all these rules tacked on to any big dollar value procurement for Canadian content, IRBs etc that there isn't a project credit included somewhere when they report the budget. For example, if a $1B dollar project creates $250M in clear economic benefits (or things like taxes that go directly back to the govt), it would be nice if that was included for context within the project updates.
Pretty ridiculous when it's a 70 year old, cabinet level 'Build in Canada' shipbuilding policy, combined with IRBs, VPs and other things that tack on to the overall project cost, but those benefits are not balanced into the project spreadsheets. You spend a whack of staff time arguing with folks in Finance etc on why it costs so much, when you had no option to do anything other then build it in Canada under those rules. Unless you run an open competition without any of those contract terms in play, it's also impossible to say what the 'premium' is for going this route with any real accuracy, but we can at least track the benefits down to a pretty reasonable number.